On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 00:46 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:54:23PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: [...] > > In hindsight, it's obvious that Debian's testing of this update wasn't > > sufficient either. Such breaking changes in perl stable updates are, > > I believe, exceedingly rare, but equally we had not attempted a wholesale, > > or near-wholesale update in Debian stable before, and the breakage > > wasn't reported in any real-world testing using the stable update > > installed from source. In future, we should perform similar automated > > testing against jessie-proposed-updates as we do in experimental when > > a new major version of perl is introduced. [...] > I've prepared an updated package of libdevel-declare-perl, which builds > and tests out fine with both perl 5.20.2-3+deb8u4 and 5.20.2-3+deb8u5. > > A debdiff for stable is attached. Release team, are you happy for me > to upload (is the distribution correct for stable-updates)?
Yes, it is, in as much as one never uploads to stable-updates - one uploads to stable, via p-u, and we cherry-pick uploads from there sideways into -updates at our discretion once they're ready. Please go ahead with the upload to p-u and we'll see from there. In general it's also preferable if a new release.d.o bug is filed to track the upload, rather than CCing debian-release on bugs belonging to another package. (I realise that this is a regression, but the popcon stats for libdevel-declare-perl have a "recent" count of 10, which does make me wonder how wide an impact this is actually having in practice.) Regards, Adam
